You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Case Review and Principles Governing Application of Privacy Related Torts
Journalism & Communication
Pages 3 (753 words)
In this case, the defendant moved to court and filed for summary judgment and dismissal of the case by asserting that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the third aspect of a trademark defilement and prejudicial rivalry.
In the previous history of the case, the plaintiff, Wentworth, lodged an amendment complaint against Settlement Funding, the defendants asserting that the defendant took part in actions that amounted to copyright violation, trademark dilution, injury to the business reputation and false representation in breach of sections 32 (1) and 43 (a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C pursuant to section 114 (1) and 1125 (a) (2006) (O’Neill 1). The plaintiff also claimed trademark violation and unfair competition under Pennsylvanian state law. The plaintiff claims originate from the defendant’s supposed use of plaintiff’s emblems in two ways: through Google’s Adwords program and the “meta-tags” for defendant’s webpage (O’Neill 2). The plaintiff alleged that the two usages of the plaintiff’s brand name guarantees that a link to defendant’s webpage will appear instantly adjacent to a link to defendant’s webpage when people carry out internet searches for “J.G. Wentworth” or “JG Wentworth” (O’Neill 4). The plaintiff further claimed that the use of the plaintiff’s emblems constitute violating deeds that were aimed at confusing the consumers and to divert prospective customers away from the plaintiff’s webpage (O’Neill 6). Plaintiff noted that this also would steal their potential customers and wear down the uniqueness of plaintiff’s emblems, therefore, resulting to a considerable loss of profits. In its judgment, the court granted the defendants the motion to dismiss and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed (O’Neill 8). ...
Not exactly what you need?